Latest news with #Raimondo
The Age
a day ago
- Business
- The Age
Victorian underquoting laws: Expert calls on Allan government to release review
The Victorian Greens said they would this week introduce a bill to parliament requiring the reserve price of a property to be disclosed before auction day, in a bid to stop buyers unwittingly forking out thousands of dollars on inspection reports for homes they can't realistically afford. The REIV is calling on the government to start fresh consultation on how to improve fairness in the property sector. The peak real estate lobby group is also now backing mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, in a significant policy pivot announced on Monday. Premier Jacinta Allan earlier this month. Credit: Eddie Jim 'Reserve price disclosure isn't just backed by consumer advocates, even the Real Estate Institute of Victoria and leading property industry figures support it,' said Greens public and affordable housing spokeswoman Gabrielle de Vietri. 'With the public and industry on board, Labor has no excuse to delay.' Premier Jacinta Allan said she would seek advice on that proposal and also the merits of a model that would result in those selling their home providing prospective buyers with a free pest and building inspection documents. 'We are open to looking at what we can do to make the property market fairer for everyone,' Allan said. She described underquoting as a 'pretty shabby practice, which is why we're cracking down on it and made it illegal'. Enzo Raimondo, pictured in 2014 when he led the REIV. Credit: Fairfax Raimondo said he couldn't disclose the recommendations made by him and his property market review co-author, consumer advocate Carolyn Bond, due to a confidentiality agreement. But he confirmed the 2022 report did include recommendations he believed would reduce the prevalence of underquoting. 'We spent months on it. We interviewed consumers, we interviewed industry groups, we interviewed agents, and there's some, I think, excellent recommendations on the issue of reserve price [disclosure],' he said. 'It's odd that the review, which is meant to assist, hasn't been released … I can only speak for myself and not the other panel members, but I was certainly disappointed that it wasn't released and at least debated openly on what should occur.' When asked if there was any reason not to make the report public, Allan said the report was a cabinet document, and she was more focused on 'acting now, leading the nation in cracking down on illegal underquoting'. Raimondo said the review received fairly consistent feedback from the public that agents were providing price guides that were off the mark. He said while agents would use the excuse that they're not property valuers, they generally worked in the same sector for a long period and should know their market. The use of three comparable properties to justify price guides was being manipulated by agents and the criteria around this needed to be tightened up, Raimondo said. 'In Victoria, it's not a bad system. It's just that it's not being used correctly,' he said. Start the day with a summary of the day's most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Victorian underquoting laws: Expert calls on Allan government to release review
The Victorian Greens said they would this week introduce a bill to parliament requiring the reserve price of a property to be disclosed before auction day, in a bid to stop buyers unwittingly forking out thousands of dollars on inspection reports for homes they can't realistically afford. The REIV is calling on the government to start fresh consultation on how to improve fairness in the property sector. The peak real estate lobby group is also now backing mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, in a significant policy pivot announced on Monday. Premier Jacinta Allan earlier this month. Credit: Eddie Jim 'Reserve price disclosure isn't just backed by consumer advocates, even the Real Estate Institute of Victoria and leading property industry figures support it,' said Greens public and affordable housing spokeswoman Gabrielle de Vietri. 'With the public and industry on board, Labor has no excuse to delay.' Premier Jacinta Allan said she would seek advice on that proposal and also the merits of a model that would result in those selling their home providing prospective buyers with a free pest and building inspection documents. 'We are open to looking at what we can do to make the property market fairer for everyone,' Allan said. She described underquoting as a 'pretty shabby practice, which is why we're cracking down on it and made it illegal'. Enzo Raimondo, pictured in 2014 when he led the REIV. Credit: Fairfax Raimondo said he couldn't disclose the recommendations made by him and his property market review co-author, consumer advocate Carolyn Bond, due to a confidentiality agreement. But he confirmed the 2022 report did include recommendations he believed would reduce the prevalence of underquoting. 'We spent months on it. We interviewed consumers, we interviewed industry groups, we interviewed agents, and there's some, I think, excellent recommendations on the issue of reserve price [disclosure],' he said. 'It's odd that the review, which is meant to assist, hasn't been released … I can only speak for myself and not the other panel members, but I was certainly disappointed that it wasn't released and at least debated openly on what should occur.' When asked if there was any reason not to make the report public, Allan said the report was a cabinet document, and she was more focused on 'acting now, leading the nation in cracking down on illegal underquoting'. Raimondo said the review received fairly consistent feedback from the public that agents were providing price guides that were off the mark. He said while agents would use the excuse that they're not property valuers, they generally worked in the same sector for a long period and should know their market. The use of three comparable properties to justify price guides was being manipulated by agents and the criteria around this needed to be tightened up, Raimondo said. 'In Victoria, it's not a bad system. It's just that it's not being used correctly,' he said. Start the day with a summary of the day's most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
Reuters
05-06-2025
- Science
- Reuters
Artificial Intelligence is now an A+ law student, study finds
June 5 (Reuters) - The latest generation of generative artificial intelligence can ace most law school final exams, a new study has found. OpenAI's newest model, called o3, earned grades ranging from A+ to B on eight spring finals given by faculty at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, researchers found in a new paper published on SSRN, opens new tab. Those high grades represent a significant improvement from previous studies done on earlier versions of ChatGPT, also from OpenAI, which scored B's, C's, and even one D's when researchers had them take law school finals in 2022 and 2023, according to the paper. Studies conducted earlier by other researchers had also found that ChatGPT earned 'mediocre' grades on law school finals and that although it improved the speed of legal writing, it did not improve the quality. Researchers also have found that AI can pass the bar exam. However, generative AI looks to be catching up to actual high-performing law students, based on the latest study. Unlike ChatGPT, which immediately generates text in response to a user's query, o3 is what is known as a reasoning model. This means that it generates tentative answers and multiple approaches to questions after internally evaluating and revising those responses, after which it produces the final text for the user. The study's authors — seven law professors from University of Maryland — graded the final answers from o3 on the same curve they use for their students. The program's answers earned an A+ in Constitutional Law, Professional Responsibility, and Property. Its answers got an A in Income Taxation, and an A- in Criminal Procedure. It scored a B+ in Secured Transactions and Torts, and a B in Administrative Law. The's answers program did well on both multiple choice questions and essays, the study found. However, there were some limitations on o3's answers. The program's relatively low grade in administrative law was attributable to the fact that o3 did not know about the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine, which was central to administrative law. That ruling had come shortly after the o3's knowledge cutoff date. The o3 program performed worse on one final when given access to the professor's notes — an unanticipated outcome the researchers attributed to the program being 'distracted' by too much text. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday about the study's findings. The study's authors wrote that they are already contemplating an updated experiment to determine how much of a cheating threat AI poses by instructing the program to make occasional spelling and grammar mistakes, so that those exams will be difficult to distinguish from those completed by real students. Read more: ChatGPT passes law school exams despite 'mediocre' performance AI improves legal writing speed, not quality - study
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is right: The administrative state needs a reset
The federal courts have spoken, and the message is clear: the days of unaccountable bureaucratic enforcement are numbered. On April 17, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission's FCC forfeiture order against a broadcaster, signaling urgent need for internal reform. In so doing, the court joined a growing judicial movement to restore constitutional limits to the administrative state. If the FCC doesn't want to find itself repeatedly on the losing end of such rulings, it must act now to modernize its enforcement processes and recommit to our foundational principles of due process and statutory fidelity. This is not a niche procedural issue; it's a broader test of whether federal agencies can continue operating in legal gray zones. In sum, it raises a critical question: does the rule of law still matter? In Jarkesy v. SEC, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans are entitled to a jury trial when facing significant monetary penalties from federal agencies. This decision affirmed what should have been obvious: The government cannot bypass the Constitution simply by labeling its penalties 'administrative.' Though Jarkesy dealt with the Securities and Exchange Commission, its implications reach far wider. The FCC, which similarly relies on internal adjudication to impose forfeitures, is not exempt. The Fifth Circuit's April ruling is the first concrete indication that Jarkesy is reshaping the legal terrain in real time. The court struck down the FCC's order on grounds that mirror those at issue in Jarkesy — namely, concerns about due process and the proper role of the judiciary. We at the FCC must take this warning seriously. Our enforcement model, which depends heavily on internal proceedings and interpretations of ambiguous statutory authority, is increasingly vulnerable to constitutional challenge. If the FCC seeks to preserve the legitimacy and durability of its actions, we must proactively reform—not just reactively litigate. Moreover, this is not just about Jarkesy. The broader judicial trend, as seen in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, reflects a sharp decline in judicial deference to agency interpretations. The days of rubber-stamped regulatory overreach, justified by vague or expansive readings of congressional statutes, are coming to an end. Courts demand that agencies operate strictly within the clearly defined limits Congress prescribes. That's good for democracy, good for accountability, and essential for the rule of law. President Trump has long recognized the dangers of an unaccountable administrative state. His call to rein in regulatory overreach, most recently through Executive Order 14219 and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), reflects a broader commitment to restoring constitutional order. These reforms are not theoretical — they are a mandate. The FCC must align with this vision by ensuring that every enforcement action is grounded in clear statutory authority, subject to judicial review, and respectful of due process. Anything less risks violating both the law and the trust of the American people. This is why DOGE is so promising. Every federal agency should embrace its mission — to identify and dismantle outdated, burdensome, or legally tenuous regulations. With its deep backlog of legacy rules and complex enforcement structures, the FCC is an ideal candidate for reform. Some may argue that stricter limits on agency enforcement will weaken regulatory effectiveness. We disagree. Reforms rooted in transparency, statutory clarity, and procedural fairness don't undermine the law — they strengthen it. They ensure that when the government acts, it does so with legitimacy and public trust. So what must be done? First, the FCC should immediately begin a top-to-bottom review of its enforcement procedures. That includes the internal adjudication mechanisms used to impose fines and penalties, many of which were designed in an era of far greater deference to agency discretion. We should ask whether those procedures offer adequate due process, whether they comply with current constitutional standards, and whether they can be improved to better reflect the rule of law. Second, we must reassess whether our interpretations of statutory authority — especially in areas like forfeiture and license enforcement — are firmly grounded in congressional intent. The courts have little patience left for creative agency readings of the law. It's time to return to textual fundamentals. Third, the FCC should actively support the work of DOGE and other reform initiatives. This includes identifying rules and precedents that, while perhaps once useful, now serve little purpose beyond entrenching bureaucratic inertia or legal risk. Finally, we should foster a new culture within the agency — one that values legal humility over expansive power. Agencies should not be in the business of stretching the law to fit their policy preferences. That's Congress's job. Our role is to execute the law faithfully, not reinvent it. The FCC has always adapted in times of technological and legal change. From the transition to digital broadcasting to the dawn of the broadband era, we have reformed our processes to meet the moment. Now, facing a constitutional correction in administrative law, we must do so again. If we get this right, we won't just avoid future litigation — we'll build a regulatory framework that is stronger, fairer, and more resilient for decades to come. Nathan A. Simington is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. Gavin M. Wax is his chief of staff and senior advisor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump is right: The administrative state needs a reset
The federal courts have spoken, and the message is clear: the days of unaccountable bureaucratic enforcement are numbered. On April 17, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission's FCC forfeiture order against a broadcaster, signaling urgent need for internal reform. In so doing, the court joined a growing judicial movement to restore constitutional limits to the administrative state. If the FCC doesn't want to find itself repeatedly on the losing end of such rulings, it must act now to modernize its enforcement processes and recommit to our foundational principles of due process and statutory fidelity. This is not a niche procedural issue; it's a broader test of whether federal agencies can continue operating in legal gray zones. In sum, it raises a critical question: does the rule of law still matter? In Jarkesy v. SEC, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans are entitled to a jury trial when facing significant monetary penalties from federal agencies. This decision affirmed what should have been obvious: The government cannot bypass the Constitution simply by labeling its penalties 'administrative.' Though Jarkesy dealt with the Securities and Exchange Commission, its implications reach far wider. The FCC, which similarly relies on internal adjudication to impose forfeitures, is not exempt. The Fifth Circuit's April ruling is the first concrete indication that Jarkesy is reshaping the legal terrain in real time. The court struck down the FCC's order on grounds that mirror those at issue in Jarkesy — namely, concerns about due process and the proper role of the judiciary. We at the FCC must take this warning seriously. Our enforcement model, which depends heavily on internal proceedings and interpretations of ambiguous statutory authority, is increasingly vulnerable to constitutional challenge. If the FCC seeks to preserve the legitimacy and durability of its actions, we must proactively reform—not just reactively litigate. Moreover, this is not just about Jarkesy. The broader judicial trend, as seen in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, reflects a sharp decline in judicial deference to agency interpretations. The days of rubber-stamped regulatory overreach, justified by vague or expansive readings of congressional statutes, are coming to an end. Courts demand that agencies operate strictly within the clearly defined limits Congress prescribes. That's good for democracy, good for accountability, and essential for the rule of law. President Trump has long recognized the dangers of an unaccountable administrative state. His call to rein in regulatory overreach, most recently through Executive Order 14219 and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), reflects a broader commitment to restoring constitutional order. These reforms are not theoretical — they are a mandate. The FCC must align with this vision by ensuring that every enforcement action is grounded in clear statutory authority, subject to judicial review, and respectful of due process. Anything less risks violating both the law and the trust of the American people. This is why DOGE is so promising. Every federal agency should embrace its mission — to identify and dismantle outdated, burdensome, or legally tenuous regulations. With its deep backlog of legacy rules and complex enforcement structures, the FCC is an ideal candidate for reform. Some may argue that stricter limits on agency enforcement will weaken regulatory effectiveness. We disagree. Reforms rooted in transparency, statutory clarity, and procedural fairness don't undermine the law — they strengthen it. They ensure that when the government acts, it does so with legitimacy and public trust. So what must be done? First, the FCC should immediately begin a top-to-bottom review of its enforcement procedures. That includes the internal adjudication mechanisms used to impose fines and penalties, many of which were designed in an era of far greater deference to agency discretion. We should ask whether those procedures offer adequate due process, whether they comply with current constitutional standards, and whether they can be improved to better reflect the rule of law. Second, we must reassess whether our interpretations of statutory authority — especially in areas like forfeiture and license enforcement — are firmly grounded in congressional intent. The courts have little patience left for creative agency readings of the law. It's time to return to textual fundamentals. Third, the FCC should actively support the work of DOGE and other reform initiatives. This includes identifying rules and precedents that, while perhaps once useful, now serve little purpose beyond entrenching bureaucratic inertia or legal risk. Finally, we should foster a new culture within the agency — one that values legal humility over expansive power. Agencies should not be in the business of stretching the law to fit their policy preferences. That's Congress's job. Our role is to execute the law faithfully, not reinvent it. The FCC has always adapted in times of technological and legal change. From the transition to digital broadcasting to the dawn of the broadband era, we have reformed our processes to meet the moment. Now, facing a constitutional correction in administrative law, we must do so again. If we get this right, we won't just avoid future litigation — we'll build a regulatory framework that is stronger, fairer, and more resilient for decades to come. Nathan A. Simington is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. Gavin M. Wax is his chief of staff and senior advisor.
